Jump to content

Talk:Pomelo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pomelo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mrfoogles (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Going to leave comments as I read the article: Mrfoogles (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The pomelo tree may be 5–15 meters (16–50 feet) tall, possibly with a crooked trunk 10–30 centimeters (4–12 inches) thick" -- I think this wording is confusing; the tree must obviously have a trunk all of the time. Maybe "with a possibly crooked trunk"? Mrfoogles (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • Also, the source says "somewhat crooked trunk" -- I also try to avoid using the same words, but I think there's a difference between "somewhat" and "possibly" here. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • "Their leaf petioles are distinctly winged, with alternate, ovate or elliptic shapes 5–20 cm (2–8 in) long, with a leathery, dull green upper layer, and hairy under-leaf." -- the grammar here is a little jarring; the petioles are described as having hairy under-leaves. I think it might be more clear to separate this sentence. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten.
  • Reading this sentence I assumed the petioles had ovate or elliptic shapes, but reading the source it says the leaves have ovate or elliptic shapes. I think this needs to be rephrased. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten.
  • Reading "The fruit is large, 15–25 cm (6–10 in) in diameter" -- the source cited is the SFGate article, which does not state the exact size of the fruit. I assume this source is being used to say that the fruit is large, but that's difficult to get from how it is cited. Maybe just remove the SFGate source if it's only to say that it is "large"? I think it's reasonable to say that without a citation as long as you have a citation for the size. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • On the part about the taste, the sources appear to say "the flavor varies from mildly sweet and bland to subacid or rather acid, sometimes with a faint touch of bitterness" and "very juicy, acid to sweet-acid in flavor when fully ripe". The article says "The flesh tastes like mild grapefruit, with a little of its common bitterness". I see where you're going with the mild grapefruit part, but can't find fact that it tastes like grapefruit is in the sources, just that it is less acidic. Maybe say that? A more detailed source might be better on the taste. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • One thing that I do think is important is that each sentence in the 2nd body paragraph have a citation after it, as when there is a citation halfway through the paragraph it is unclear whether it is meant to cite the whole first half of the paragraph or just that sentence, especially when there are other citations in the first half as there are now.Mrfoogles (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other ref has been removed.
  • Definitely not required for GA but quotes from the sources identifying the source of the content would be very helpful, I think, for the Purdue source, given its length. I am also unable to find where "The physical and chemical characteristics of pomelo vary widely across South Asia" is mentioned. If that is intended as a summary of all the varieties listed, that seems reasonable, but maybe remove "chemical" in that case as I don't see much comment on that in the Varieties section of the source. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "The Dutch name in turn has uncertain etymology, but is possibly derived from Dutch pompel 'swollen' or pompoen 'pumpkin', combined with limoes 'lemon, citrus fruit', influenced by Portuguese limões with the same meaning." -- I think there should be a citation at the end of this sentence. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Not required, but it would be easier to understand if the "Nutrition" section had a citation in-text, I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted; all food articles have a similar structure as the nutrition bunnies manage the USDA/FAO tables.
  • Issue: The Purdue source does not appear to cite the Brazil and Sri Lanka culinary uses of the food. Additionally, it does not mention a rind at all; it says the section skins can be preserved and the peel can be candied. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.
  • In the "Cultivation" section, the article says "Outside Asia, the pomelo is usually grafted", but the source only appears to say that is done in the US, based on its "Propagation" section. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited.

Alright, that's pretty much everything I see. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just one more thing -- I forgot to mention this but "In large parts of Southeast Asia where pomelo is native it is eaten as a dessert, sprinkled with salt or dipped in a salt mixture, or made into salads" is not fully cited in Purdue source. It does say it the skin segments used in desserts or salads, but it doesn't say anything about a salt mixture, and it doesn't give a location. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to (as is tradition) continue beyond the "one more thing" with more things, but I went around with "Who Wrote That" to find the older bits of the article and did a few more source checks. It turns out "The bitter orange is a naturally occurring hybrid between the pomelo and the mandarin, with the pomelo the larger and firmer of the two." and "The grapefruit was originally presumed to be a naturally occurring hybrid of the pomelo and the mandarin" aren't cited by the Louzada source, presumably due to stuff getting confused. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Also, I was looking at the Cultivation section, where I was confused by the wording of the original source, which says "Only the best varieties are vegetatively propagated-traditionally by air-layering but more modernly by budding onto rootstocks of pummelo, 'King' or 'Cleopatra' mandarin, rough lemon, or Rangpur lime. In experimental work in the United States, the "T", or shield-budding, method has been found most satisfactory.", and I think it might mean that shield-budding is used specifically in "experimental work", but not necessarily for general use, as the article implies. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited, with new source.
      • I see the new source, but it also doesn't cite that shield-budding is common in the US other than in experimental work. Specifically, it says "In commercial practice, pomelo is commonly propagated by grafting an individual bud of a selected variety onto a rootstock seedling or by air-layering method as in Vietnam. In the Philippines, shield budding is a standard practice for propagation, using rootstock of calamandrin (possibly a hybrid of calamondin and mandrin)." So it instead claims that grafting is standard practice. Maybe just include both claims and attribute them? Mrfoogles (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems we shouldn't single out the US at all, so removed it. Using both sources for the "Pomelos can be propagated" sentence.
      • Reading it again it could also mean that "shield-budding" is the best way to propogate high-quality variants according to research, rather than the shield-budding method being used in research. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's just one among multiple possible methods, that's sufficient.
  • I also think it might be worth rephrasing to make it clear that high-quality varieties are air-budded everywhere not just in the US; the semicolon makes it a bit ambiguous. However, those should actually be the last things, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Ok, so I took another look at the article and I think there's one thing in the lead that's not cited in the body -- it says the pomelo is native to Southeast Asia. The Purdue source said it was native to Southeast Asia & Malaysia, so I just added it (hopefully that's OK). Although I wonder if the author means Malesia, the region, rather than Malaysia, the country? I think it might be worth finding another source that spells it right to confirm, although I don't think that's a GA requirement. https://www.itfnet.org/contents/fruit/fruitInfo/html/trdLevel2021.html seems to say its origin is unknown, potentially Malaysia & Indonesia, seemingly contradicting the first one, though, which seems concerning. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was going to ask about ITFT, which I genuinely believe is the last thing -- https://www.itfnet.org/contents/fruit/fruitInfo/html/trdLevel2021.html has the vibes of a reliable source, but the url is in the website's filesystem and not something you can get do by navigating from the front page, and starting here on the website I get to a different document, which is likely more updated and has a different opinion on the native distribution (it's not "unknown" anymore). The source seems reliable, but I think the article should use the updated version posted on the website, rather than an outdated version still accessible at its url but not actually the version presented by the website's UI. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've updated the ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, here we go. Overall, I think this article passes and although I do wonder exactly where it's native to and the state of the research there, this article passes the standard of addressing the topic and addressing the major viewpoints, I think.
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Pummelo

[edit]

Not required for GA so I'm just dropping this on the talk page that I keep seeing it as "pummelo" and think that the mention of the alternate spelling might be worth doing. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pomelo&oldid=1282309553"